Re: [PATCH v5 08/17] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Do not change the STE twice during arm_smmu_attach_dev()

Mostafa Saleh
2024-02-13T15:40:53Z

Hi Jason,

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 11:12:45AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> This was needed because the STE code required the STE to be in
> ABORT/BYPASS inorder to program a cdtable or S2 STE. Now that the STE code
> can automatically handle all transitions we can remove this step
> from the attach_dev flow.
>
> A few small bugs exist because of this:
>
> 1) If the core code does BLOCKED -> UNMANAGED with disable_bypass=false
> then there will be a moment where the STE points at BYPASS. Since
> this can be done by VFIO/IOMMUFD it is a small security race.
>
> 2) If the core code does IDENTITY -> DMA then any IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT
> regions will temporarily become BLOCKED. We'd like drivers to
> work in a way that allows IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT to be continuously
> functional during these transitions.
>
> Make arm_smmu_release_device() put the STE back to the correct
> ABORT/BYPASS setting. Fix a bug where a IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT was ignored on
> this path.
>
> As noted before the reordering of the linked list/STE/CD changes is OK
> against concurrent arm_smmu_share_asid() because of the
> arm_smmu_asid_lock.
>
> Tested-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> Tested-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> Tested-by: Moritz Fischer <moritzf@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 15 +++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> index 1138e868c4d73e..340f3dc82c9ce0 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> @@ -2562,7 +2562,6 @@ static void arm_smmu_disable_pasid(struct arm_smmu_master *master)
> static void arm_smmu_detach_dev(struct arm_smmu_master *master)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - struct arm_smmu_ste target;
> struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = master->domain;
>
> if (!smmu_domain)
> @@ -2576,11 +2575,6 @@ static void arm_smmu_detach_dev(struct arm_smmu_master *master)
>
> master->domain = NULL;
> master->ats_enabled = false;
> - if (disable_bypass)
> - arm_smmu_make_abort_ste(&target);
> - else
> - arm_smmu_make_bypass_ste(&target);
> - arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev(master, &target);
> /*
> * Clearing the CD entry isn't strictly required to detach the domain
> * since the table is uninstalled anyway, but it helps avoid confusion
> @@ -2928,9 +2922,18 @@ static struct iommu_device *arm_smmu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
> static void arm_smmu_release_device(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> + struct arm_smmu_ste target;
>
> if (WARN_ON(arm_smmu_master_sva_enabled(master)))
> iopf_queue_remove_device(master->smmu->evtq.iopf, dev);
> +
> + /* Put the STE back to what arm_smmu_init_strtab() sets */
> + if (disable_bypass && !dev->iommu->require_direct)
> + arm_smmu_make_abort_ste(&target);
> + else
> + arm_smmu_make_bypass_ste(&target);
> + arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev(master, &target);
> +
> arm_smmu_detach_dev(master);
> arm_smmu_disable_pasid(master);
> arm_smmu_remove_master(master);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
I am still reviewing patch-1 and the hitless machinery (also I think -or hope-
this can be simplified), with the assumption that
arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev()/arm_smmu_write_ste() will do the right thing,
that good looks good to me.

However, as it changes the current behavior of the driver where disable_bypass
used to override require_direct, I am not sure if this would break any existing setups.

Thanks,
Mostafa